News and views on Greystones harbour and marina [SEE MODERATOR WARNING POST 1187]

Annasopra

This thread is in danger of going off topic a bit - discussion about politicians is fine if the discussion is in the context of the harbour but if its just a discussion about how all politicians are untrustworthy then perhaps use the politics forum

Buzkashi

gibbon6 wrote: »

You are being far far too understanding and forgiving. We all know who rejected the Peoples Plan and their treachery will not be forgotten nor forgiven.

Yeah, with you on that, gibbon6. I was down there and watchin that McLoughlin woman thrash around trying to square her circle would have even been entertaining if it wasn't sickening. Politicians have presented us with some nausea-inducing antics over the years, but with hers you'd need a gallon of Gaviscon.

Pity you can't link direct to FB comments. I think this one from the GUBOH account of the meet and vote tells it like it was:

The FF councillors split with Billy Norman voting for the Community Plan.

So the vote was THREE for the Community Plan — Mayor Stokes and Cllrs Norman and Fortune.

It was FOUR against — Cllrs James O'Sullivan, George Jones and Derek Mitchell (FG) plus Cllr Kathleen Kelleher (FF).

Independent Cllr Chris Maloney abstained.

Cllr Grainne McLoughlin (FG) was, like the rest of the FG faction, under George's party whip, clearly well prepared in advance. But she couldn't quite stomach a total reversal of her position just a month ago — and since — that "the Community Plan is great but it doesn't go far enough."

So she abstained.

And thus appeared to both support and reject the Community Plan.

In reality, as three councillors had at that point put up their hands in favour of the plan, and her FG colleagues and Kathleen Kelleher had their four hands in the air against, she knew that an abstention would give them victory.

So she abstained.

She also knew that if she went against them and voted FOR the plan, it would be FOUR/FOUR and Mayor Stokes' casting vote would have ensured the plan was accepted by the council and Sisk's proposal rejected.

So she abstained.

This is the greatest act of treachery. This is simply selling out the Greystones community. This was the worst Machiavellian calculation, totally self-serving and without the slightest element of promoting what the community needs in respect of this issue.

The elections are next May. Time to say goodbye to the Festival Queen.

Buzkashi

Anyhow, as Mango says, maybe the political aspect in itself is for somewhere else. I wasn't trying to cut across that with my post now, just clarify the actual voting and that comment certainly squared with what I observed myself.

I'm more taken with F3's analysis (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87510963&postcount=2250), which is interesting. I'm no QS, but F3's figures are convincing and I believe him when he says that the Sisk letter and costing was deliberate obfuscation and designed to mislead. Pigs and grunts come to mind.

So, with no full-scale road, no rock armour, and no need for planning approval or EIS, the Community Plan cost comes down by a lot, within talking distance of the CP costing produced at the TC meeting, €1.8 million.

(Incidentally, I noticed that Derek Mitchell referred to that as €1.3m during the meeting and this was then repeated by SNIP TEXT REMOVED BY MODERATOR — is this a deliberate attempt to try and make the gap between the Sisk cost and the CP cost look bigger than it actually is?)

As Sisk have to spend on almost everything in the CP anyway at some stage, surely the real question is: What is the extra cost over and above that in their own costings?

I reckon if we looked at it from that angle, the difference is probably minimal. How much more can topsoil cost to Sisk than to Stephen Donnelly and Tom Fortune? Off the top of the head, if the CP extra cost is €300K, can Sisk's costing put it any higher than €400K or at most half a mill, once apples and apples are being compared?


Any thoughts, F3?

********

BTW, a small aside. Once the community proposes something, the opponents all start waffling about it needing planning approval, bla bla.

How come Sisk or others don't? There's a whole bunch of unauthorised development down there right now and no sign of WCC enforcing planning regulations.

One, the car park as its is has not got planning. It has 90 spaces, it is not in the correct location according to approved design, and it is not surfaced as per plan.

Two, there's already a bunch of temporary buildings and transport containers littering the place, and they have no planning permission.

The crappy looking accommodations for the marina should be, according to the approved plan, a proper built structure.

The container placed beside the new hoist has no planning approval and there is no provision for any structure at the 'boatyard' other than the Coastguard building.

Three, now we have a couple of clubs looking to put transport containers onto the site of the clubhouses to shelter boats.

Ya know, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander?

If Sisk or BJ Marinas Ltd or WCC can set up unauthorised structures or developments on the site, why start in on the Community Plan needing PP?

Tabnabs

To add some actual news about the harbour; the crane for lifting out boats has arrived (on the south pier) and there were moorings laid in the "outer basin" and seemingly dangerously close to the beach. Any chance of our resident and excellent photographer taking a few new shots for posterity?

legrand

Just what is the purpose of the hoist/crane?
I mean there are two slips in the harbour - so do I presume the hoist is dedicated to a lifeboat (?) or something? I notice its legs (wheels actually) traverse the main harbour and an adjunct to the pier.

Can we take that the area where the hoist resides will remain permanently cordoned off?

pixbyjohn

legrand wrote: »

Just what is the purpose of the hoist/crane?
I mean there are two slips in the harbour - so do I presume the hoist is dedicated to a lifeboat (?) or something? I notice its legs (wheels actually) traverse the main harbour and an adjunct to the pier.

Can we take that the area where the hoist resides will remain permanently cordoned off?

The hoist is used to lift yachts in and out of the water

pixbyjohn

Greystones Harbour 15th November 2013 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

pixbyjohn

Boat Hoist & Moorings @ Greystones Harbour 15th November 2013 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

loyatemu

legrand wrote: »

Just what is the purpose of the hoist/crane?
I mean there are two slips in the harbour - so do I presume the hoist is dedicated to a lifeboat (?) or something? I notice its legs (wheels actually) traverse the main harbour and an adjunct to the pier.

Can we take that the area where the hoist resides will remain permanently cordoned off?

I think that area was always earmarked as a boatyard, so it is likely to remain fenced.

fenris

I wonder if the moorings will result in a swimming ban when they are put into use?

Zoo4m8

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Boat Hoist & Moorings @ Greystones Harbour 15th November 2013 by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

Ugly as sin..:mad:

pixbyjohn

Harbour 30th Dec2006 (30) by pixbyjohn, on Flickr

BigGeorge

Amazing how time changes things...or doesnt. It looks like Tom Fortune & Deputy Harris were on the money when the sniffed something wrong with this project back in 2009

http://www.derekmitchell.ie/?p=245

Confident Greystones Harbour will be completed
Published on 10 May 2009 by admin in Achievements, Greystones, Harbour


Simon Harris and Councillor Tom Fortune have been on the radio suggesting it wont be completed for 15 years, wanting firm information and whinging. Both of them campaigned to reject this visionary harbour project and they should check the facts before making these statements spreading alarm.


The harbour works are running about 4 months late because the waves have made it more difficult to lay the blocks than was anticipated. This work is now going to be done on two shifts over the Summer to try to complete most of the outer wall before Winter when bigger waves make it more difficult. A second barge is being brought in to speed up laying the rock armour. This is not the mark of a contract that is not proceeding.

The construction of the clubhouses (including piling) has been postponed to give total priority to the Harbour Walls.

There is a €10m bond in place to ensure completion. This is adequate as the €35m sea wall is more than half complete. We expect to open the harbour in the Autumn 2010 and the Southern half of the hoardings around the public square will come down then.

The boardwalk and homes will take 2 years from then to build though they could be mothballed for a bit. However the marine clubs, public slipways and Public Square will be open. October 2014 is the date when all the contract must be completed.



Years ago I arranged that the Council would employ a top lawyer on this complex project and the selection criteria included considering the financial strength of the bidders. The Council is in a strong position because of this preparation.

Tabnabs

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

Ugly as sin..:mad:

Yes, so unlike those decorative relics you see in old harbours.

F3

Buzkashi wrote: »

Anyhow, as Mango says, maybe the political aspect in itself is for somewhere else. I wasn't trying to cut across that with my post now, just clarify the actual voting and that comment certainly squared with what I observed myself.

I'm more taken with F3's analysis (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87510963&postcount=2250), which is interesting. I'm no QS, but F3's figures are convincing and I believe him when he says that the Sisk letter and costing was deliberate obfuscation and designed to mislead. Pigs and grunts come to mind.

So, with no full-scale road, no rock armour, and no need for planning approval or EIS, the Community Plan cost comes down by a lot, within talking distance of the CP costing produced at the TC meeting, €1.8 million.

(Incidentally, I noticed that Derek Mitchell referred to that as €1.3m during the meeting and this was then repeated by SNIP TEXT REMOVED BY MODERATOR — is this a deliberate attempt to try and make the gap between the Sisk cost and the CP cost look bigger than it actually is?)

As Sisk have to spend on almost everything in the CP anyway at some stage, surely the real question is: What is the extra cost over and above that in their own costings?

I reckon if we looked at it from that angle, the difference is probably minimal. How much more can topsoil cost to Sisk than to Stephen Donnelly and Tom Fortune? Off the top of the head, if the CP extra cost is €300K, can Sisk's costing put it any higher than €400K or at most half a mill, once apples and apples are being compared?


Any thoughts, F3?

********

BTW, a small aside. Once the community proposes something, the opponents all start waffling about it needing planning approval, bla bla.

How come Sisk or others don't? There's a whole bunch of unauthorised development down there right now and no sign of WCC enforcing planning regulations.

One, the car park as its is has not got planning. It has 90 spaces, it is not in the correct location according to approved design, and it is not surfaced as per plan.

Two, there's already a bunch of temporary buildings and transport containers littering the place, and they have no planning permission.

The crappy looking accommodations for the marina should be, according to the approved plan, a proper built structure.

The container placed beside the new hoist has no planning approval and there is no provision for any structure at the 'boatyard' other than the Coastguard building.

Three, now we have a couple of clubs looking to put transport containers onto the site of the clubhouses to shelter boats.

Ya know, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander?

If Sisk or BJ Marinas Ltd or WCC can set up unauthorised structures or developments on the site, why start in on the Community Plan needing PP?

Erudite thoughts Buz. Starting with your last points first, I've just seen the photographs of the Crane, what the f*** is there a steel container on the pier for!!! It looks dreadful and definitely has no planning permission. This is exactly the kind of double standards that people of Greystones have had to endure from WCC for generations now. WCC simply do what they want when they want and to hell with what is good for Greystones. I would immediately be objecting with banners and protest on the siting of the first container arriving. NO WAY!!!

With Regard to you comments on costing, you have the measure just right. This 'costing' chat is just a distraction from the real issue ( which I will explain later ) but stunts like reporting to the newspapers that the community plan was costed at €1.3m instead of €1.8m is nasty nasty small minded one-up-man-ship. Is he that bitter about announcing that it was €13million, then €10million, then €8million that he feels so stupid that he has to knock €500k off the community plan 'in error' to make a point....?

Buzkashi

BigGeorge wrote: »

Amazing how time changes things...or doesnt. It looks like Tom Fortune & Deputy Harris were on the money when the sniffed something wrong with this project back in 2009

http://www.derekmitchell.ie/?p=245

Confident Greystones Harbour will be completed
Published on 10 May 2009 by admin in Achievements, Greystones, Harbour


Simon Harris and Councillor Tom Fortune have been on the radio suggesting it wont be completed for 15 years, wanting firm information and whinging. Both of them campaigned to reject this visionary harbour project and they should check the facts before making these statements spreading alarm.


The harbour works are running about 4 months late because the waves have made it more difficult to lay the blocks than was anticipated. This work is now going to be done on two shifts over the Summer to try to complete most of the outer wall before Winter when bigger waves make it more difficult. A second barge is being brought in to speed up laying the rock armour. This is not the mark of a contract that is not proceeding.

The construction of the clubhouses (including piling) has been postponed to give total priority to the Harbour Walls.

There is a €10m bond in place to ensure completion. This is adequate as the €35m sea wall is more than half complete. We expect to open the harbour in the Autumn 2010 and the Southern half of the hoardings around the public square will come down then.

The boardwalk and homes will take 2 years from then to build though they could be mothballed for a bit. However the marine clubs, public slipways and Public Square will be open. October 2014 is the date when all the contract must be completed.

Years ago I arranged that the Council would employ a top lawyer on this complex project and the selection criteria included considering the financial strength of the bidders. The Council is in a strong position because of this preparation.

Well, Jaysus, talk about what you say coming back to bite you in the arse!!

Ya couldn't get a better example than this. But sure, SNIP; TEXT REMOVED BY MODERATOR

Anyhow, going back through his website and his leaflets distributed over the past few years, he seems to be the man holding the record for the largest number of predictions about when various features and facilities would be opened at the harbour — just about all of which have failed to come to pass.

Maybe we can think up a new game based on this.

My favourite was the time he announced he was in contact with the Chinese to finance the medical centre. He actually announced this on his site and in a press release published by the Greystones Guide in March last year: http://www.derekmitchell.ie/?p=795

Anyhow, that 15-year prediction by Fortune and Harris was back in May 2009. Four and a half years ago. Only ten to go, lads. Any bets?

I'd give good odds against the optimist. On past form, his chances are pretty poor.

Doubleskipper

F3 wrote: »

Erudite thoughts Buz. Starting with your last points first, I've just seen the photographs of the Crane, what the f*** is there a steel container on the pier for!!! It looks dreadful and definitely has no planning permission. This is exactly the kind of double standards that people of Greystones have had to endure from WCC for generations now. WCC simply do what they want when they want and to hell with what is good for Greystones. I would immediately be objecting with banners and protest on the siting of the first container arriving. NO WAY!!!

With Regard to you comments on costing, you have the measure just right. This 'costing' chat is just a distraction from the real issue ( which I will explain later ) but stunts like reporting to the newspapers that the community plan was costed at €1.3m instead of €1.8m is nasty nasty small minded one-up-man-ship. Is he that bitter about announcing that it was €13million, then €10million, then €8million that he feels so stupid that he has to knock €500k off the community plan 'in error' to make a point....?

Wicklow Co Co seem to do what they like irrespective of the laws of the land. They show utter contempt for the people of Greystones. It would not surprise me to find out that they have built a nuclear power station in the county such is their complete ambivalence to the laws of the land. This corrupt quango should be abolished.

BigGeorge

The constant slippage on dates by Sispar actually quite interesting & consistent. Unless you were a shocking sceptic, you'd have to believe that the Councillors, Greystones Town Council & WCC have taken the dates that Sispar have given then at face value , hook line & sinker so to speak....commitments which Sispar have then failed to live up to for nearly 5 years now.

This is course begs the question, if Sisk have not delivered on the real project commitments ( other than a marina & a temporary car park) for over 5 years...then how in the name of goodness could you believe that they will start construction again in 2Q 2014 as they committed to at the September Town Council Meeting.

Maybe the emperor has new clothes?....or just wishful thinking?

Doubleskipper

BigGeorge wrote: »

The constant slippage on dates by Sispar actually quite interesting & consistent. Unless you were a shocking sceptic, you'd have to believe that the Councillors, Greystones Town Council & WCC have taken the dates that Sispar have given then at face value , hook line & sinker so to speak....commitments which Sispar have then failed to live up to for nearly 5 years now.

This is course begs the question, if Sisk have not delivered on the real project commitments ( other than a marina & a temporary car park) for over 5 years...then how in the name of goodness could you believe that they will start construction again in 2Q 2014 as they committed to at the September Town Council Meeting.

Maybe the emperor has new clothes?....or just wishful thinking?

The ugly Sispar emperor was conceived and born in the middle of a property boom and never had any clothes. This very low lying coastal site on reclaimed land beside an old dump was never a suitable location for a residential development anyway. Have these dudes not heard of climate change, rising sea levels, inundation from the sea etc etc? The corruption in the Irish planning system is clear for all to see when one sees the destruction of Greystones Harbour.

cuddlycavies

Ultimately it is political corruption that drives bad decisions! It's only with sadness that I leave my last contribution to this thread. Grainne Mc is I believe basically decent. However the rock she has chosen to end her political career on was unwisely chosen. The reason given for her abstention was that following a meeting with Eddie Sheehy (Mother Theresa of planning decisions) she became aware of possible litigation from sisk down the road (total rubbish). Why would anyone take advice from someone who presided over the purchase of a landlocked swamp in Charlesland, needed to be arrested to cooperate on an enquiry into two mens deaths, appeared triumphant when the responsibility of same was passed to the taxpayer, paid heavies to guard a council meeting last week, did not get levies from developers during the boom, did not negotiate a favourable overdraft facility with banks despite having put huge amounts of money through those banks when times were good? NO GOOD REASON! We must go out of our way to show GMc that we are sick of this sort of rubbish. We expect and need more of our representatives and if you're not up to it, you need to GO! (happy to personalise this on your FB page Grainne)

F3

cuddlycavies wrote: »

Ultimately it is political corruption that drives bad decisions! It's only with sadness that I leave my last contribution to this thread. Grainne Mc is I believe basically decent. However the rock she has chosen to end her political career on was unwisely chosen. The reason given for her abstention was that following a meeting with Eddie Sheehy (Mother Theresa of planning decisions) she became aware of possible litigation from sisk down the road (total rubbish). Why would anyone take advice from someone who presided over the purchase of a landlocked swamp in Charlesland, needed to be arrested to cooperate on an enquiry into two mens deaths, appeared triumphant when the responsibility of same was passed to the taxpayer, paid heavies to guard a council meeting last week, did not get levies from developers during the boom, did not negotiate a favourable overdraft facility with banks despite having put huge amounts of money through those banks when times were good? NO GOOD REASON! We must go out of our way to show GMc that we are sick of this sort of rubbish. We expect and need more of our representatives and if you're not up to it, you need to GO! (happy to personalise this on your FB page Grainne)

CC, for your final contribution ( with regret I must say, as your contributions to this thread have been first class ) you have encapsulated what is most probably at the epicentre of this problem. We as a country are faced with an outdated imperialistic non- accountable modus operandii of senior civil servants that has been allowed continue by equally incapable elected political parties and public representatives ( elected I might add because there is no other real option or choice ). Wicklow patently are one of the worst local authorities led by SNIP; TEXT REMOVED BY MODERATOR at the top mentoring equally inept lieutenants and if we do not stop this rot, we will continue to suffer the horrific consequences.

The county councilors on our Town Council for the most part have a disrespectful arrogance to the people of greystones constantly retorting through crocodile grins that you ( the community) only have yourselves to blame because we keep getting elected and thus we not only don't have to listen to you, we are most definitely not listening to you. They give out about the faceless / nameless bloggers on this thread, but yet they still read everything.....in fact I think they wait beside their PC's or android devises for a notification of new posts. What's ironic is that some of them themselves use the anonymous protection of boards on this thread to air their inner views, but are just too spineless to challenge "the Boss" or their party whip.

(By the way, Good morning to you all, and remember there are those you will not break, and will never stop until you are ejected disgracefully from representing our views, you could just follow the example of some and stand down before the elections)

There is a new generation now. We are less tolerant then past generations. Blogging, twitting, face booking are all a part of every day life where we can communicate our views, and by the way it is a well known fact researchers get most of their insights on issues from such forums as this.

They all have been afforded plenty of opportunity to educate themselves on matters that they are not proficient, but refuse to do so, then they mock those like CC and others on this thread as being extreme and minority groups.

We'll, we are not a minority. This is the major topic in the town, frustrated only by 3 or 4 self serving public reps who have been complete found out.

A friend of mine has just drafted a schedule of failures announced by one such colourful self serving rep which it were not no serious would be hilarious. I find it difficult to find original expletives to describe an individual with the clear memory of a goldfish of the public embarrassment he/she should be feeling yet continues without hesitation to be taken seriously by his fellow peers setting aside for a moment the community he/she is supposed to represent. If this person worked for me I would have fired them on the spot long ago!!!!! their feet would not have touched the ground with the ferocity of my conviction, (secretly hoping that the same fool would take me to a tribunal where I could forensically put their ineptitude under a microscope and give them a second thrashing of reality)

Please reconsider not posting on this thread CC, but I think you'll keep an eye on what's going on.

Annasopra

Folks drop the personal attacks. Also I am keeping a regular eye on this thread. I've just permabanned a rereg account.

Fiachra2

The mooring-if such you could call them-are probably a further attempt by Sisk to pretend that they are advancing the project. (the planning permission require the installation of moorings in the outer harbour)The moorings are not merely too close to the beach. Yesterday at low tide they were actually on the beach. (Moorings that dried out a feature of the horrible decrepit rat infested ugly harbour that we used to have that had to be replaced at all costs with a proper harbour with a marina and moorings that didn't dry out at low tide........??)

The hoist is indeed for lifting yachts not lifeboats. It would seem a little extravagant given the number of yachts in the harbour but again it is a requirement of the planning permission.

With regard to the appearance of it and the container on the pier it is indeed outrageous that this should be permitted. However by way of explanation of the thinking of those behind this a certain public representative frequently named in this thread had the temerity to suggest at a meeting that, after all, sailing harbours don't always look very nice anyway!
The arrogance is mind boggling so lets keep on the case.

I agree with Mango regarding the attacks. Lets keep it civil no matter how angry we are. I have neither named nor insulted the individual above but I imagine that readers know who I am talking about and hopefully have a clearer picture of the level of disregard he (ooops!) has for the non sailing community of Greystones

recedite

fenris wrote: »

I wonder if the moorings will result in a swimming ban when they are put into use?

Its hardly a coincidence that they have placed these buoys in the exact spot that was most favoured by parents of young children. There were kids swimming in that spot all last summer. Whether a ban is enforced or not, the array of buoys definitely seems designed to encourage them to "move on".

Annasopra

The other thing is if there are continued personal attacks then people will get their legal people involved and boards.ie will have to close the thread.

fenris

recedite wrote: »

Its hardly a coincidence that they have placed these buoys in the exact spot that was most favoured by parents of young children. There were kids swimming in that spot all last summer. Whether a ban is enforced or not, the array of buoys definitely seems designed to encourage them to "move on".

That is pretty much what I though when I saw them, they are very close together and very close to the shore, more like a barrier than moorings really, when you have a few boats bobbing about on them they will be a problem for younger kids and as soon as the first older kids decides to climb up and jump off a boat we will have the inevitable call for a swimming ban and talk of it being a "working" harbour.

F3

mango salsa wrote: »

The other thing is if there are continued personal attacks then people will get their legal people involved and boards.ie will have to close the thread.

I'd be interested to see on what grounds their legal people could take a cause of action. These people have chosen to put themselves into the public arena and forums like this is where their action or inactions are discussed and critiqued. If they cannot be critiqued here, then where? We live in a modern world of blogging and social forum.

If it does not happen here, it will happens elsewhere. I'm not debating your instructions on the matter, I know that a legal action would be futile

F3

Often the same reps, stick their toe in the water referring to going legal. Some examples:

"If we go legal against WCC it will cost millions and delay the process indefinitely"
"If WCC invoke the bond, Sisk will sue them for €60m"
"The PCC is definitely commencing, but we have some legal matters to deal with"

What is it about 'going legal' with these people. They really have no idea what they are saying yet it rolls off their tongues as a veiled threat to a child that the bogeyman will get you if you don't eat your greens.

They forget, that the community are not ignorant of matters legal, and processes legal, even if they are ignorant themselves

Annasopra

F3 wrote: »

I'd be interested to see on what grounds their legal people could take a cause of action. These people have chosen to put themselves into the public arena and forums like this is where their action or inactions are discussed and critiqued. If they cannot be critiqued here, then where? We live in a modern world of blogging and social forum.

If it does not happen here, it will happens elsewhere. I'm not debating your instructions on the matter, I know that a legal action would be futile

Look thats going off topic a bit. I am just issuing an informal friendly warning.

pixbyjohn

Harbour hoist by pixbyjohn, on Flickr